Bell v. DOD, No. 16-0959, 2018 WL 4637005 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2018) (Contreras, J.)

Bell v. DOD, No. 16-0959, 2018 WL 4637005 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2018) (Contreras, J.)

Re:  Requests for a variety of records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  "[T]he Court finds that Defendant's searches were reasonable."  The court finds that "[defendant] identifies the multiple record systems and locations used for each of the searches, why the relevant information would be in those locations and systems, personnel involved with the searches, and the scope of the searches."  "The methodology of each search is also thoroughly explained."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration:  The court holds that "the two Vaughn Indices and supporting documents are sufficiently specific 'to permit adequate adversary testing of the agency's claimed right to an exemption.'"
   
• Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  The court holds that "Plaintiff did not pay the assessed fees for [two requests], despite being allotted an adequate amount of time, and despite fair notice from the Defendant regarding potential administrative closure of the requests."  "Therefore, Plaintiff did not exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to [those two requests]."
   
• Exemption 5, Attorney Work-Product & Attorney-Client Privilege:  "[T]he Court finds that the invocation of the protections of work–product and attorney–client privilege was appropriate."  The court relates that defendant withheld "emails containing advice between counsel and various DLA supervisors, and/or Human Resources."  The court finds that "[t]he record indicates that litigation could reasonably have been anticipated, and in fact, was either imminent or ongoing relative to the dates of the withheld or redacted documents."  Also, the court finds that "Defendant invokes attorney-client or work–product privilege for most of its withholdings, all of which appear to involve the general counsel or another of Defendant's attorneys." 
   
• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege:  The court relates that, "[h]ere, Defendant invokes the deliberative process privilege with respect to '. . . drafts and deliberative email discussions that took place prior to final decisions that were made regarding Plaintiff's various requests for reasonable accommodations, drafts of affidavits and declarations submitted as part of her EEO actions, as well as discussions about how best to approach the challenges that Plaintiff presented as an employee.'"  "[T]he Court is satisfied the documents were properly withheld."  "These documents were, by their nature, 'predecisional' and prototypically 'deliberative.'"
   
• Exemption 6:  "The Court finds that the employees' interest in keeping the withheld information private outweighs Plaintiff's asserted public interest in disclosure[.]"  The court finds that "knowledge of employees' names, employment performance history and evaluations, security clearances, requirement compliance history, time periods of furlough, etc., would reveal little or nothing more about the Defendant's conduct."  Against that, the court finds that "a substantial privacy interest exists here."
   
• Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection:  The court holds that, "given the reasonably detailed nature of Defendant's Declarations, the absence of any evidence of bad faith by Defendants, and the lack of justification provided by Plaintiff supporting such a time-consuming review, the request for in camera review shall be denied."